9 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Comcast has no shame. It's defensiveness over this disgusting use of the revolving door shows even it knows it crossed the line. Now it's demanding loyalty oaths from any group it gives chartable contributions too?

I would like to see a donation campaign initiated to make up for the 18k that Comcast wants you to beg for. I would think there are at least 18k people who dislike Comcast enough to send a buck -- there's your money!

Just donate to support your summer program (learned about it through FreePress). Hopefully you can raise enough to tell Comcast that they can keep their money. Keep up the great work and don't let Comcast, or anyone else censure you or tell you what to think! I'll be sending Comcast an email as well.

Comcast is under no obligation to support your group, so why would you act surprised that having your workers publically criticize them could negatively effect your donation from them?

Well unless your simply trying to spin this into an "evil company denies poor charity funding" story to try and capitalize off it and increase your donations from other sources, which appears to be the case.

I think there is a serious problem (at least First Amendment concerns) when the federal government of the US creates and enforces a monopoly (or at least very reduced competition) in public airwaves and other communication access channels and then allows the heavily profiting beneficiary (Comcast) to use that profit to pick and choose what speech they want to support and what speech they want to deny.

This is another opportunity to write to my government representatives and ask them why they are tolerating this exploitation.

Also, please create a donations button where people can give a few dollars here and there.

@Rev. Spaminator, megacopyright owners like Comcast are among the winners of our IP (copyright) laws. Most folks stand to gain a lot from encouraging as many means as possible of disseminating the digital versions of their works. Comcast, Big Money, and impersonal (let's face it) greedy conglomerates are the ones that need the monopolies to sustain their stockholder supporting money-making machines. They spend tons of money "convincing" Congress to pass unjust anti-competitive, anti-consumer, and anti-artist laws while asking artists to add in their voices of support.

Artists don't need monopoly restrictions. Artists suffer from the extra power that major copyright holders carry in today's society and over our own culture. Artists don't have leverage when they have to "go to Comcast" in order to reach an audience and must sell half their soul in order to achieve this and make a fortune for the conglomerate. Artists have their name. Artists have the Internet. Artists have the brand that matters. Audiences care about the talent and work that comes from the creators and about whom the creator endorses. We pay a premium for that. We don't pay a premium so that the sponsor multiplies their investments many-fold.

As long as Big Money can buy up so many monopolies using so much leverage, artists will continue to get an inferior deal and even lose access (for many many decades) to things they created themselves.